Order to Show Cause re Change of Venue
necessary, and the status conference will go off calendar. If the transfer has not been completed, however, then all counsel are ordered to appear at the status conference, at which time the court may dismiss the action without prejudice pursuant to CCP § 396a(a).
Plaintiff to give notice.
2 Williams vs. TENTATIVE RULING: General Motors, LLC Order to Show Cause re Change of Venue.
The Court set this order to show cause hearing regarding the proper venue and potential transfer of this action brought under the Song- Beverly Act. As part of the Court’s OSC Order, the Court invited counsel to file a written response that included the sales/lease agreement for the vehicle at issue. Neither plaintiff nor defendant filed anything in response to the OSC.
Statement of Law
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 395(a), “the superior court in the county where the defendants or some of them reside at the commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial of the action.” Additionally, “if a defendant has contracted to perform an obligation in a particular county, the superior court in the county where the obligation is to be performed, where the contract in fact was entered into, or where the defendant or any defendant resides at the commencement of the action is a proper court for the trial of an action founded on that obligation, and the county where the obligation is incurred is the county where it is to be performed, unless there is a special contract in writing to the contrary.” (Code Civ.
Proc., §395(a).) Similarly, Section 395.5 provides that a corporation “may be sued in the county where the contract is made or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arises, or the breach occurs; or in the county where the principal place of business of such corporation is situated, subject to the power of the court to change the place of trial as in other cases.”
In Tidrick v. FCA US LLC (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1147, 1156, the court explained:
“Section 395, subdivision (b) provides that a consumer action “arising from an offer or provision of goods [or] services” is proper “where the buyer or lessee in fact signed the contract, where the buyer or lessee resided at the time the contract was entered into, or where the buyer or lessee resides at the commencement of the
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
action.” However, the trial court failed to cite, and we have been unable to locate any authority making the venue provisions of section 395, subdivision (b) mandatory in Song-Beverly Act cases.
Because Code of Civil Procedure section 395, subdivision (b) is not mandatory, generally applicable venue rules apply. Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5 specifies where venue may be had in a case, such as this one, where a party to the action is a corporation: “A corporation may be sued in the county where a contract is made or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arises, or the breach occurs; or in the county where the principal place of business of such corporation is situated, subject to the power of the court to change the place of trial as in other cases.” A foreign corporation may obtain a county residence under Corporations Code section 2105, subdivision (a)(4), which allows it to designate its principal office within the state, thus granting a county of residence for venue purposes.
Here, FCA is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Newport Beach, California. Thus, pursuant to, venue was proper either in Fresno County, where the contract was made and the alleged breach occurred, or in Orange County, where FCA maintains its principal place of business in California.”
Order to Transfer Venue
The court, having considered the above legal authority, the operative Complaint, and any declarations filed in response to the setting of this hearing, finds that venue is not proper in Orange County. Plaintiff has not established that Orange County is where the contract was made or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arose, or the breach occurred; or the county where the principal place of business of Defendant is situated.
The court orders this case transferred to the county where the contract was made or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arose, or the breach occurred; or the county where the principal place of business of such corporation is situated. That county is not evident from the Complaint. Plaintiff is ordered to notify the court clerk of the proper county for transfer of venue within 7 days of this ruling.
Plaintiff is ordered to pay all fees necessary to effectuate the transfer, which include, but are not necessarily limited to, (1) the transfer fee of $50, which must be paid via a check made payable to the clerk of the court, and (2) the first appearance fee for the new court, which must be paid via a separate check made payable to the clerk of the
court. Plaintiff is ordered to submit both checks to the clerk of the Orange County Superior Court within 30 days of this ruling (and the first appearance check will be forwarded to the new court along with other materials). Plaintiff is further ordered to take all other steps necessary to effectuate the transfer.
The court sets a status conference regarding the transfer of this action for Tuesday, November 10, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., in Department N16. If the transfer is completed prior to that date, no appearances are necessary, and the status conference will go off calendar. If the transfer has not been completed, however, then all counsel are ordered to appear at the status conference, at which time the court may dismiss the action without prejudice pursuant to CCP § 396a(a).
Plaintiff to give notice.
3 Alamour vs. CONTINUED TO 8/19/26 Regents of the University of California 4 Choe vs. City TENTATIVE RULING: Storage Systems LLC Defendants City Storage Systems, LLC (“City Storage”), Restaurant Technology Solutions, LLC (“Restaurant Tech”), 1750 Newport Blvd CM, LLC (“Newport”) demurrer to the first amended complaint by Plaintiffs June Choe and Poke Pub Corp. is VACATED and taken OFF-CALENDAR.
Defendants City Storage Systems, LLC (“City Storage”), Restaurant Technology Solutions, LLC (“Restaurant Tech”), 1750 Newport Blvd CM, LLC (“Newport”) motion to strike portions of the first amended complaint by Plaintiffs June Choe and Poke Pub Corp. is VACATED and taken OFF-CALENDAR.
Pursuant to the Court of Appeal’s remittitur, filed on June 4, 2026, and opinion, filed April 2, 2026, the petition by Defendants City Storage Systems, LLC (“City Storage”), Restaurant Technology Solutions, LLC (“Restaurant Tech”), 1750 Newport Blvd CM, LLC (“Newport”) to compel arbitration is GRANTED. All parties to this action are ordered to arbitration. This action is stayed pending the resolution of arbitration.
Given the Court of Appeal’s remittitur and opinion, therefore, Defendants’ pending demurrer and motion to strike are moot.
An ADR Review Hearing is set for December 15, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in this Department.